"Creation Science" experiments.

Creationists and IDists don't do anything that can be meaningfully called science. They don't do experiments. They don't make predictions. And if anyone can show me a genuine discovery made as a direct consequence of creationist or ID theories I will eat my underpants.What so called creation/ID scientists do is take the facts and discoveries of genuine science and re-interpret them into a predefined story or world-view that includes supernatural agents for which there is no evidence doing things for which there is no evidence other than the aforementioned interpretation. It is a case of circularity gone mad dressed up in the clothes and language of genuine science in an attempt to take advantage of the respect and authority that genuine science has earned as a result of it's success. Success based on prediction, understanding and discovery that creationism/IDism has made absolutely no contribution to whatsoever.The ridiculous error that all creationists and IDists make is to think that science is simply a case of going round making observations and then interpreting them into any internally consistent story one chooses to believe. It isn't. Science is about demonstrating a deeper understanding by taking observations, developing theories and then TESTING those theories against reality by predicting further new observations and discoveries that are a direct logical consequence of the proposed explanation for the original observations.Without this requirement to test ones theories and interpretations against reality, without this ability to predict and progress understanding through discovery, nothing that can be legitimately called science is being done.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Name me one discovery made directly as a result of creationist or IDist theories and I will eat my pants.Will you do the same if I point out to you discoveries made as a direct result of evolutionary theory, Big Bang cosmology or indeed any other established genuine scientific theory? Huh? Believing in God has nothing to do with anything here. Belief that God exists is not the same as creationist or ID claims that God necessarily undertook some significant role in nature. The claim that God must have some role in nature is NOT the same as saying "Well Newton believed in God and Newton discovered gravity" so God must exist. That is fallacious in so many ways it is ridiculous. How dare you even conflate the two.Instead you need to consider what the assertions, theories and logical consequences of creationism or ID predict about the world and then you need to compare how these predictions fare in comparison with whether or not reality agrees.Simply interpreting known evidence in a way that is consistent with your world view is a pointless exercise in confirmation bias at best. Why don't you instead describe how creationism/ID can be demonstrated through prediction and discovery? Why don't you explain why in these terms it has been such an epic fail?I dare you to try.

Oh for heavens sake!!! Newton was an alchemist as well as a theist. Does Newtons work on gravity give credence to notions of alchemy purely because he believed in both?We are talking about the viability of creation/ID "science" here. What has creation/ID science ever discovered? And if the answer to that question is "nothing" how can you even call it "science"? You can apply post hoc interpretations to anything. And this is exactly what creationists/IDist do to the verified predictions and discoveries of genuine science.What I am asking you to do is demonstrate that creation/ID "science" is capable of making verifiable predictions and discoveries. What I am asking you to demonstrate is that creation/ID "science" can meet the same standards as genuine science as opposed to making the fallacious claim that all interpretations are equally valid.What has creation/ID science ever discovered? And if the answer to that question is "nothing" how can you even call it "science"? That says it all.Start with a belief system and then look for evidence to confirm what you think you already know.The absolute antithesis of genuine science.Until you realise why your above statement is so entirely damning of your whole position here you will never comprehend what science actually is or why creation/ID "science" is no such thing and never can be.

You continue to miss the point.Evolutionary theory, Big Bang cosmology and all the other scientific theories that you have a problem with have been verified by means of prediction and verification. The most objective, the most exacting, the most indicative test of accuracy we can apply to any theory or interpretation mankind has ever formulated. And thus a key component of the scientific method.As a result of these methodologies evolution etc. has made predictions that have resulted in both the uncovering of new evidence and demonstrable progress in our understanding of nature and it's workings. Namely discoveries.What has creation/ID "science" ever discovered? And if the answer to that question is "nothing" how can you even call it "science"? This is, always has been, and remains the question you cannot and never will be able to answer as an advocate of creationist/ID "science". That is your eternal failing.Until creationist or ID "science" is able to make discoveries based on the logical consequences of it's theories it is incomparable to anything that can genuinely be called science. But the claim that no-one has ever made a discovery on the basis of the hypothesis that there is a divine creator remains stubbornly true. No. What I mean is that there is no science that supports creationism. No verifiable predicted results that have been achieved as a direct result of creationist theories or interpretations.All you do, all you ever do, is re-interpret genuine scientific discoveries in terms of your own pre-defined beliefs. That is not science. It is confirmation bias of the very worst kind. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Does that fact that Newton was an advocate of alchemy mean that his scientific credential give any weight to his alchemistic beliefs?

Why do you think listing names has any bearing on the validity of creation "science" as an endeavour? If I cite you a list of Muslim scientists does that mean that Islam is scientifically superior to Christianiity? What about scientists who practise Scientology? Are all religions with "scientists" interpreting data in accordance with their particular predefined beliefs doing "science" or is it just the Christian ones?There is no science that supports creationism. No verifiable predicted results that have been achieved as a direct result of creationist theories or interpretations. No discoveries. Nothing new. Zip. Nada. Zilch. How can you call an activity that has never discovered anything "science"?All you guys do, all you ever do, is re-interpret genuine scientific discoveries in terms of your own pre-defined beliefs. That is not science. It is confirmation bias of the very worst kind.

Can you name a single discovery made on the basis of (i.e. as a direct logical consequence of) creationist/ID theories? Or not?If the answer to this question remains "no" you have no argument to speak of.Conversely I am sure many here will be delighted to explain to you how numerous discoveries have been made as a direct consequence of those theories which you assert are nothing more than naturalistic interpretations.Any blathering idiot can make a theory fit the facts. But only a superior theory can be used to predict and thus lead to the discovery of new facts.So - in short - unless you can cite some creation "science" discoveries - You lose.

OK. So which part of this do you disagree with?Straggler previoulsy writes:

quote:

---

There is no science that supports creationism. No verifiable predicted results that have been achieved as a direct result of creationist theories or interpretations. No discoveries. Nothing new. Zip. Nada. Zilch. How can you call an activity that has never discovered anything "science"?

​

All you guys do, all you ever do, is re-interpret genuine scientific discoveries in terms of your own pre-defined beliefs. That is not science. It is confirmation bias of the very worst kind.

---

Do you agree that an ability to to derive verifiable predictions from the logical consequences of a theory, predictions which directly lead to the discovery of new evidence and new facts, is indicative of a superior theory?Is not the ability to predict and discover rather key to determining which competing theory or interpretation is the most accurate?Surely this is inarguable?

Your avatar and Slevesque's avatar are too damn similar.I read your post thinking it was Slev's latest response and for a second thought that Slev had come over to the dark side.Doh!!

Then why be so reticent? Let's hear them? No. We just need to agree that a discovery made as a direct logical consequence of creationist/ID theories involves the unearthing of new facts or new physical evidence as a direct result of predictions and subsequent investigation made purely on the basis of creationist/IDist theories.In other words the demonstrable ability to predict and discover new evidence rather than merely interpret existing evidence. In other words the same exacting standards of demonstrable reliability that we expect of ALL genuine scientific theories. Theories such as the theory of evolution, big bang cosmology etc. etc. I have never denied the possibility of such things. I simply question the validity of such interpretations because they have never demonstrated themselves as reliable in terms of prediction and discovery.But you apparently are about to change all that for me. So let's hear it?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Nope. There are no examples of verified prediction leading to the discovery of new evidence in the third paragraph of your post Message 155.So let me just ask a basic question of you - Do you agree that an ability to to derive verifiable predictions from the logical consequences of a theory, predictions which directly lead to the discovery of new evidence and new facts, is indicative of a superior theory?Is not the ability to predict and discover rather key to determining which competing theory or interpretation is the most accurate?For the record I don't really care whether the people who did the research are wearing white coats or leotards and I don't care whether or not the findings were published in Playboy or the 'Very Prestigious Journal of Real Science'.I am simply asking you to name a single discovery (as opposed to re-interpretation of existing evidence) made as a direct result of the theories you are advocating.

Nope. There are no examples of verified prediction leading to the discovery of new evidence in your latest post either. You said you could cite some. Where are they?So let me just ask a basic question of you - Do you agree that an ability to to derive verifiable predictions from the logical consequences of a theory, predictions which directly lead to the discovery of new evidence and new facts, is indicative of a superior theory?Is not the ability to predict and discover rather key to determining which competing theory or interpretation is the most accurate?

I am not automatically excluding ID or anything else.I am asking you for a single example of of verified prediction derived from the logical consequences of creationism/ID theory which has directly led to the discovery of new evidence. A discovery.Is not the ability to predict and discover rather key to determining which competing theory or interpretation is the most accurate? Of course.If someone who discovers a wholly naturalistic and conventionally scientific cure for cancer also happens to believe in the existence of ghosts does his cure for cancer have any bearing on the evidential validity of belief in ghosts?Of course not.